Post Your Comment

178 Comments

I'm pretty sure its a safe bet that soon AMD will be catching up to Intel in the way of value. I can't really see the use or the need of increased performance from CPU in the near future. The C2D are more the good enough with the Quatro and i7 being over powered for what people need. It will soon come down to price as it really won't make sense to get more power.

It depends what you need. The Core2Duo is not remotely good enough
for my needs (video encoding) and neither are AMD's best quad-cores.
For me, the i7 is ideal. I have a thousand hours of video to convert.

Yes, but I think you are really paying for it. Additionally, at the price point of the Athlon X3s/X4s in this review, you're not going to get anything from Intel that handles encoding comparatively well for that sort of price, however I should point out that AMD's competitors in the sub-$100 bracket are the Core 2 Duos/Pentium Dual Cores, not the Quads, and no Nehalem in sight. If Intel released a dual core Nehalem at this price range, I'm not sure even the Athlon X4s could compete with that, at least in encoding. Reply

I'm not interested in getting into this flame war about monopolies, Intel and AMD. If anything, I certainly wish there were MORE competitive players in the field, though entrance costs are certainly staggering. I wouldn't mind being able to pick from 3 CPU makers and 3 GPU makers. Even then, it would hardly be a competitive market, but hey - I like choice, and 3 producers is hardly a flooded market!

All I know is that I'm quite satisfied that, using AMD and ATI, I can build a well-performing all-around computer for less than $800. I don't need the top of the line for my home performance, even when I want to play games like Crysis and Left 4 Dead. I just need stability and good support.

I'm also quite happy that AMD is putting a lot of effort into low-power CPUs. There's no reason we should have to pull 800W in order to play the highest end games. I'd love to see gaming systems running at 350W or below! (It's good to see Dell and HP finally embracing 80+ Certified PSUs)

I tend to purchase AMD components because I'm simply not an over-clocking, mega-gaming power user. I like games, but I also like being able to pay for other things, such as food and rent :) Sure, I'd love to have an i7, but I honestly don't know what I would do with it. Would a person like me (Tech savvy, to be sure, but not a power-gamer) really use the power? Doubtful. Honestly, most users in the world demand very little from their systems.

Before 2008, I tried my best to stay away from ATI products. I was never impressed with their performance or their driver support; however, for the money, they seem to be the best 'bang for the buck'. Paying $130 for a 4870 is a great deal for someone like me. Sure, I wish their drivers were less bulky, but overall, the products are fantastic.

To all you guys knocking AMD have you looked at the main stream products of Intel as of late? Have you tried a Core i5 750? This CPU is a shame. I had real hopes for it as I own two core i7 920 (3.8ghz and 4.0ghz). Having no hyperthreading and performance just slightly better than the PIIBE it is not the Killer processor I thought it coudl have been. On a side note, If you count the user posts at Newegg it "seems" not to be selling well as compared to the 920 and the PIIBE 940 and 955. In the 200 dollar range a 955BE at OC'd to 3.8ghz does very well against the Core i5 750 that has been overclocked as well. Under 200 the Core2 Quads and Duos are just not that great compared to a PIIBE processors and in the $120 and under AMD Athlon II X4 620, which I own, is a great CPU for the money. AMD is starting to come out of the red and they are doing it the right way. Most processors are bought in the Under 200 dollar catagory and the Core i5 is not competing that well, at least for now, as it is not a clear winner. Just my Opinion as an owner of a Core i5 Reply

Excuse me? All of these multimedia tasks are eaten up right now by the i5, if you look, because it has far better instruction sets, Turbo mode, and L3 cache, which the Athlons do not. Phenom IIs, but for the latest Thuban, because of how lopsided instruction set optimization has gotten.Reply

"Thanks to its higher clock speed the Athlon II X3 435 draws a little more power than the 620 at idle, but uses a little less under load. The new energy efficient chips can't be touched. Personally I wouldn't spring for them, but if you're looking to upgrade a building full of machines and want as much power reduction as possible the e series can deliver."

At idle 435 and 620 are running at the same clock speed and same voltage.
435 X3 is nothing more than 620 X4 without one core.
There mus be another reason why at idle 435 draws a little more power than 620.

I found it funny how Intel has only one cpu under 65w tdp for desktops on newegg and its a 1.8ghz single core celeron while AMD is about to release six at 45w tdp that will easily outperform it along with the two they already have out at 45w tdp. Reply

After diggin through all of Maddoctor's delightful and humorous comments, I find myself asking this question...

Why does HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, Lenovo, and all other PC makers choose to offer ANY AMD products in their portfolios?

I think Maddoctor forgets that those in business of making computers can make MORE profit using AMD than they can make using Intel. After all, PROFIT is the driving force of business.

Joe public does not care what CPU is working for him, as long as the job gets done, in a reasonable amount of time. Joe Public could care less if he has supercomputing capabilities...for his VIDEO GAME.

I am pwning plenty of i7's, Q6600's, E8500's, Phenoms, etc. with my lowly dual P3 box running the AGP port. The fact remains, 99% of computer users on this planet could care less who (AMD or Intel) is running their applications, as long as they pay next to nothing for the computer.

Game portfolio? To what? Unreal Tournament 1 or Maple Story? Not everyone enjoys running modern non-Crytek titles at 800x600 with the lowest possible settings either. There are plenty of people in the market who are willing to pay a very modest price for decently performing low-midrange hardware. Reply

Profit only works when the product sells. AMD has not created an image for itself amongst normal people. This is like the Wii vs the XBoX 360. No one cares about the XBox 360 even if it is a better value cause no one has hardly heard of it. The Wii is priced the same, performs far worse, and has far simpler games, but outsells because they found the market, and the market stays loyal.

And yes, I own an ATi Radeon HD 5770, so I am not an AMD Hater. I just wish that AMD would be competitive in ad campaigns. Get the word out!Reply

After diggin through all of Maddoctor's delightful and humorous comments, I find myself asking this question...

Why does HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, Lenovo, and all other PC makers choose to offer ANY AMD products in their portfolios?

I think Maddoctor forgets that those in business of making computers can make MORE profit using AMD than they can make using Intel. After all, PROFIT is the driving force of business.

Joe public does not care what CPU is working for him, as long as the job gets done, in a reasonable amount of time. Joe Public could care less if he has supercomputing capabilities...for his VIDEO GAME.

I am pwning plenty of i7's, Q6600's, E8500's, Phenoms, etc. with my lowly dual P3 box running the AGP port. The fact remains, 99% of computer users on this planet could care less who (AMD or Intel) is running their applications, as long as they pay next to nothing for the computer.

First off, is anyone from AT reading this? Why is that maddoctor guy not banned yet? He replies to every single post and is clogging the forum. As a matter of fact I think this new processor is totally pointless, but that guy is unbearably annoying to me. Just say what u want and shut up.

My personal opinion is that this is just another one of AMD marketing gimmicks of faking 'keep development going'. They have no development going. Nada. Zilch. They first development that will hit the market will be the Buldozer.

Tell me what performance or price gap did this processor fill? Tell me what justifies it's existence? No it is not faster than the E7500. Are you kidding me? Look at your own diagrams for one's sake. Oh, by the way the E7500 will OC to 4Ghz on air!

This processor offers NO exceptional value at all. Not compared to AMDs line, not compared to Intel's line. This is the truth, and AT knows it.

That said, I am not rooting for Intel at all. I have the brains to see what will happen if AMD runs out of blood, because it sure is hell is bleeding like crazy right now. It has been in the red for a long time, and intel again announced fat profits yesterday.

Most Core2Duo prices haven't decreased at all for the last year and a half. I hate Intel for that. Why don't they do it? E8500 still costs ridiculous $189. Because they don't have to. Because AMD still hasn't come up with anything better than the Core2Duo. THe best they can do is match it.

Also, I believe the people that read this forum are PC enthusiasts, and even if they don't make much money they will save until they can buy a descent component. Who in his right mind is gona buy this ridiculously crippled and handicapped garbage? Even if I build a PC for my mom, I will just get something basic for $50, not this grotesque $85 uselessness.

I just hope things turn around with the buldozer and Intel gets some REAL price pressure. Reply

No, Bulldozer will never come because Intel will kill it with Sandy Bridge and if they successfully launch it, its fates will like Barcelona failure. I believe after this failure, Intel will make everyone happay with its cheaper product because Intel does not need a competitor. I like this situation. Reply

AMD Bulldozer hype will be ended with the most powerful processor in the world with Intel Sandy Bridge. BTW, If you have realized that Intel is better, don't go with crappy AMD processor. They could not design a processor like powerful Intel Processor. Reply

What are the parameters/settings for the blender redering test? The description mentions 'a character that comes with the application', but as far as I know, there are no models/scenes included with the program.

It's nice to see some more low-end chips come out, but I'm not sure that there's all that much of a market for anything between say an Athlon II X2 240 and a Phenom II X2 550/Athlon II X4 620. Choice is good, but too much choice can get very confusing. Reply

That's why they're phasing out the Phenom II X2 and X3. It's a confusing time because there is a lot of Phenom II in the channel still, but soon the 705e, 905e, 945, 955 and 965 will be the only Phenom II CPUs available, the rest will be Athlon II. Reply

I am extremely happy that you are utilizing an excel benchmark. I operate some huge models between access and excel and learning which processor will provide the best bang for the buck is of great business importance to me. Thanks again for all your hard work Anandtech Crew! Reply

Stick to your E4400 Core 2 Duo rather than buy this rubbish. Even averages Joe know who is the brand with most powerful product. Intel is the only company with everyone know about it with the best brand awareness. Reply

maddoctor is to Intel what snakeoil is to AMD and SiliconDoc is to NVIDIA. Apart from taking different companies side, they are the same thoughtless person in personality probably on the payroll of their respective companies they obsess over.

Three points:

1. Competition is the foundation of getting the best bang for the buck.

2. A monopoly might be good for a little while, but it gets corrupted by its own power and starts abusing its customers.

3. People that obsess over a particular business disregarding the facts and truths is an annoying, idiotic, hypocritical, retard or they are on the payroll of the company as an annoying marketer in charge of spamming the comments section of articles regarding their products or competing products (how much does that pay BTW, if the price is right, I might be interested...) Reply

I believe Intel as a single source supplier is the best situation for PC Consumer and the customers. Intel will prices their stuf accordingly with the production cost. I believe someday everyone will be happy when AMD is no more. Reply

I see a gain of clock speed of 400MHz (~15% clock improvements) with the price nearly DOUBLEd! How's Intel treating their customers (probably you are one of them) right?

I can only see the reason behind is lack of competition. The best Phenom II X4 BE in the market is, maybe, on par with i7-920 (in some of the test, best case scenario). Performance level of a i7-950 is totally out of AMD's reach. Reply

Competition shifts power to the buyers. how much is your computer worth to you? trade excel for your calc * paper; trade picassa for shelves of photo albums, trade ur music collection to stacks of cd's.

I'm cant think of a time when a monopoly is good.

people who dont post objectively sound more and more like fox news. dont call it stupid or better; gimme some facts, gimme some numbers. Gimme some logic. Reply

The only time I can think of a monopoly being "good" was waaaay back when cable companies first started rolling along. The monopoly gave them the incentive to roll out cable to (almost) every household in the US, on the stipulation that they had "guaranteed" profits for many years. They wouldn't have gone to the trouble of rolling out cable to so many homes so quickly otherwise.

Now, however, there's real competition, and those that are stuck with cable only are realizing the "problem" with cable. Reply

Anand, just curious, the test platform description includes mention
of an X58 mbd, yet there are no i7 results in the tables. How come?
Then again, including a couple of data points from a P55 with an
i5 750 and i7 860 would be more useful. AMD wins on price by a mile
of course (personally I reckon the 620 is the best buy much of the
time) but for those occasions where only 1 or 2 threads are running,
the i5 750 might win on price/performance. If it's deemed appropriate
to include a top-end Ph2 in the results, then surely at the very
least the i5 750 should have been included aswell just to put things
into perspective? I would include an 860 aswell just to show where
the curves are heading on the Intel side, but nothing above that.

And btw no, I don't agree with anything maddoctor says. Speaking of
which, can you please ban the guy? Once again the discussion section
of an otherwise interesting article is just being filled up with
junk. To everyone else: please don't reply to his posts, you're just
making it worse. It's a sad fact of nature that half the population
have got to be below average. Who _are_ these people? Sheesh, I can
almost hear the banjo, da da ding ding ding... :D

Ian.

PS. One other thing Anand, have you ever tested how high the 620
can be oc'd with a *good* air cooler? I know the retail AMD cooler
allows it to reach 3.25, but what about with something better? Someone
mentioned the Coolermaster Hyper TX2 as being a suitable alternative.

Anand, just curious, the test platform description includes mention
of an X58 mbd, yet there are no i7 results in the tables. How come?
Then again, including a couple of data points from a P55 with an
i5 750 and i7 860 would be more useful. AMD wins on price by a mile
of course (personally I reckon the 620 is the best buy much of the
time) but for those occasions where only 1 or 2 threads are running,
the i5 750 might win on price/performance. If it's deemed appropriate
to include a top-end Ph2 in the results, then surely at the very
least the i5 750 should have been included aswell just to put things
into perspective? I would include an 860 aswell just to show where
the curves are heading on the Intel side, but nothing above that.

And btw no, I don't agree with anything maddoctor says. Speaking of
which, can you please ban the guy? Once again the discussion section
of an otherwise interesting article is just being filled up with
junk. To everyone else: please don't reply to his posts, you're just
making it worse. It's a sad fact of nature that half the population
have got to be below average. Who _are_ these people? Sheesh, I can
almost hear the banjo, da da ding ding ding... :D

Ian.

PS. One other thing Anand, have you ever tested how high the 620
can be oc'd with a *good* air cooler? I know the retail AMD cooler
allows it to reach 3.25, but what about with something better? Someone
mentioned the Coolermaster Hyper TX2 as being a suitable alternative.

For a fast compare with other procesors the test setup is not bad but for some people some the benchmarks could be misleading.
People will not buy these cpu-s just to put them together with a intel SSD drive and a gtx280.
I think it wouldnt take much longer to test it with average hdd and a sub 100$ gpu. I would care much less if i cant compare it to other anad tests with high end cpus. Reply

For a fast compare with other procesors the test setup is not bad but for some people some the benchmarks could be misleading.
People will not buy these cpu-s just to put them together with a intel SSD drive and a gtx280.
I think it wouldnt take much longer to test it with average hdd and a sub 100$ gpu. I would care much less if i cant compare it to other anad tests with high end cpus. Reply

The purpose of using an SSD is strictly for the variability between tests. What Anand's site never shows (and one of my major complaints) is % error. In any statistical measurement you always present the amount of error in a test. What this might show is there is no REAL clear winner, or very little difference as when you get close (say within 5%), and you have a large variability (say due to a standard HD or run-to-run variability), the numbers become moot.

I will agree with you on the GTX280, however, as that is a pointless component for this price sector. Reply

As an example I went back and looked at the game data. The Fallout3 data is generated MANUALLY by running through an area and using FRAPS. The X2/X3 chips are bunched up with less than 1 fps between them. I would wager a hefty sum that the % error in this test is greater than 1fps and so any chips within that range are EQUAL. Same goes for Left 4 Dead... Reply

I don't see anything wrong for the benchmark setup, but other SSD products are not competitive and have lower performance than Intel products. The most wrong thing about is Anand is compare AMD rubbish product to Intel products. Reply

If AMD can put out inexpensive Athlon II X4 600e series desktop parts and at 45 TDP, why can't they do the same for their mobile segment:

Compared to Intel's mobile processor lineup, AMD's is rather embarrassing (AMD is just not in the game). If Intel can sell the I7-820QM @ 1.73GHz and I7-720QM @ 1.60GHz (45W TDP parts @ $546.00 and $364ea in 1K quantities) for the performance notebook market, then why isn't AMD using the Athlon II X4 600e series to form the basis for a Turion II X4 product. It'd probably be 1/2 the price but with competitive performance. They could probably even drop down the clockspeed a tad to get it in the 35W TDP range (i.e. same as Mobile C2D performance parts). Then, the only thing left to work on would be idle power consumption.

Even if there is no hypothetical Turion II X4, the 600e parts could do well in desktop replacement notebooks as-is. Besides supply issues, I can't imagine any other excuse... Just my 2 cents. Reply

I realize that everytime when one of us mentions something good about AMD and bad about Intel the famous doctor will respond. Let's see if I got his attention now.

Back to the topic, I think this is a very interesting point raised - AMD Quad parts in mobile. Athlon II X4 605e clocks at 2.3GHz, rated at 45W TDP. So following the logic, if AMD lowers the clocks to 1.6/1.8G, they could knock down the power to, maybe 25-35W TDP. Those are very nice product offerings to notebooks.

No idea why AMD does not release such parts. Engineering problem maybe? delays?... given their track record.

I would like to see AMD bringing affordable Quad core CPUs to notebook platforms, just like what they did to bring more affordable quad parts (Athlon II X4) to desktop. At the end of the day, some of us perfers AMD or Intel, but competition is the key! At least, it will offer certain degree of motivation to Intel to keep their mobile quad prices low (or lower).

Agreed that "Competition is the foundation of getting the best bang for the buck." Competition also keeps innovation going. So credits to both AMD and Intel to bring us ever faster and cheaper processors. If only Intel's left, I don't think I would see that happening. Reply

I don't see the performance being very competitive unless AMD can incorporate some clone of the Turbo Boost tech into their chips. However, I agree a cheaper quad core mobile alternative would benefit us all. Reply

WTF, They could not design it properly. Only Intel smarter engineers can do that with the best semiconductor manufacturing in the world. Turbo Boost in Intel is the best competitive solutions to suppress the power consumption like Mooly Eden have said. Reply

Yes, because AMD is not competitive both the cost and its products performance. Many people did not know about AMD because people believe Intel is the PC. With sucks marketing, it is not surpriced AMD will face bankruptcy and soon Anandtech will only review Intel products. Reply

I understand that you want to use your standard benchmarking setup, but measuring the power consumption of these chips with a GTX280 isn't all that helpful when you consider that the vast majority of these chips are going to be paired with an IGP.

It'd be nice if you could pick just one (say one of the XXXe chips) and throw it in a 780G or 785G motherboard and then measure its power consumption. From there we could extrapolate how much power the GTX280 is using to see how “Energy Efficient" these chips are in more real world setups. Saving 10-20W in the 150-200W range isn’t nearly as big of a deal as it is in the 50-100W range. Reply

Yeah, it is up to you if you like both your own PC whether is Intel or AMD. But, I remind you, Intel will be no more as a company in 2011 after AMD filed chapter 11 in Q3 2010. This is the nature of moore's law that only the number 1 company will become the only supplier of semiconductor products. Reply

The world will be a better place without AMD. Intel does not need competition in PC Market, and soon, Intel will destroy ARM stronghold in Handhelds too with low power Intel Atom. I believe with many smart engineers, Intel will not stop the innovation with products that become cheaper and cheaper. I believe what Monpoloy Man have said. Reply

Nice to see you are trolling. Intel will always innovates and its products will gradually cheaper and cheaper as Moore's Law even wthout competitor, see the facts you are using Intel now. Intel will make the consumer happy with more powerful and cheap products. Reply

When you buy a amd procesor for the same price than intel than the average pc usage speed is virtualy same if u dont sit before you computer with a stopwatch.
And after a while heawy parallel software like graphics and encodings will switch to OpenCL and use GPU and CPU so intel speed will be irelewant there. Reply

What? Dont underestimate Intel with parallel processing. Intel bright engineers like Francois Piednoel and Justin Rattner have made the most efficient parallel processing in the world. That is why Justin Rattner had putted AMD Opteron in the trash during IDF 2006. Reply

Btw, Anand. I was looking for these Athlon IIs at Newegg, and I see an Athlon X2 5000+, 45nm, AM2+, 2.2GHz. Could you ask AMD where this came from. which die this is made from, why it's AM2+ only, etc? Reply

maddoctor, you are a tool and a true idiot. AMD is not crap. Sure I use intel because its faster, but AMD needs to change. I believe you are 100% intel fanboy. Back in 2005, do you know AMD dominated the market? If you say intel is cheaper and better than AMD and you hope that it'll go out of business, then intel will might increase the prices that start at $600.

Hey, you are name calling, so just buy AMD's products now if AMD's products are not crap. Even you have admit that Intel products are faster than AMD. You see that, AMD is crap that could not design processor properly like Intel. This is an evidence that Intel's engineers are smarter than AMD. Reply

They are not crap, and I am not saying I like AMDs. The reason why AMD can't catch up Intel is they gave out rebates to customers and persuaded them to buy Intel cpus. Then EU filed a lawsuit against Intel for hurting consumers and were fined. Have YOU also heard about Intel that they paid dell 1 billion dollars not to use AMDs? You can't say AMD is crap. Do you know AMD makes really good graphics card? Reply

What EC are wrong in their investigations. Intel is respect with law and did not do anything wrong. Just ask Anand. He will argue with me Intel is not a cheater and did not cheat with benchmark like AMD. AMD products are crap, if you buy it, you will regret wil its slower performance than Intel product. Reply

you don't really understand what I'm talking about. I am not talking about how good AMD is. I'm talking about business. Business is Business. Have you heard about Intel been fined for 1.45 billion dollars because of lawsuit? Intel does something illegal. If you don't believe and not satisfy what I said, google is your friend.

Are you going get angry that Intel will start at $400 on quad core? Doesn't that make you worry? Reply

it seems a dual core is completely pointless when you can get a quad for a few $ more. any clock speed difference can be made up from overclocking, and power consumption isn't really that much higher. the dual core athlon seems to only have a place in notebooks, were a 10 watt increase can kill any demand for a product. in time the dual cores will fade out and only be seen in notebooks. with phenoms costing twice as much to make, i dont think they even make sense, why not make an 8-core athlon ll for the same die size? Reply

Anand's conclusion really sums it up. On the low end, AMD has got it locked. But AMD really has a busy product segment between the Athlon II X2, X3, and X4's. My quandary: I'm giving my current HTPC (AthlonX2 4200+) to my parents and was planning on replacing it with a new Athlon II setup. However, my main PC is an e7200. Now I don't know whether I should go low end (X2 240) for the HTPC or move up a bit (X3 435 or X4 620) and have my old E7200 be the basis of the HTPC and use the AMD system as my new main PC.

Whatever AMD product throws to market, rubbish is a rubbish. Intel products prices will make AMD's prices room tighter, and AMD is going to sink into oblivion. I love it because Intel prices will be cheaper to consumer. Reply

AMD has 13 Athlon IIs, 6 energy efficient, 7 normal CPUs, ranging from $60 to $143, with a quite a few overlapping processors. That's not even counting the Phenom IIs in that price range. Some of these might be OEM specific only, so that would simplify the lineup for the individual buyer. Even still, that's a lot of questions the buyer has to face? Faster dual core? Medium triple core? Slower quad core? Energy efficient/low heat? L3 cache?

I guess one can say there's an Athlon II that will fits anyone's needs at this price range, but figuring out which is the harder part. Reply

Or stretch your budget to whatever an i5 is going for and get the best of both worlds...

I'm currently budgeting for a new PC, and i find it hard to justify this sort of price point for a CPU. I'm not strictly Intel/AMD aligned but i just feel the i5 seems to answer most of these questions.

So...I guess then my question is what sort of budget for a Entry / Mid gaming PC would justify these CPUs?

And secondly, is there a rule of thumb you all use for what proportion of a PC you should spend on the CPU (or GPU for that matter)?

Clearly this will change due to the various offerings, but would does 25% CPU, 50% GPU, 25% M/B etc. sound about right? Reply

If anyone does want to respond - my question is along the lines of if we assume linearity in the CPU and GPU markets, is there a ratio on how much you should spend on each to get a balanced gaming PC? Reply

That's a horrible way to go about buying parts as you'll just screw yourself in the end.
I would only buy an athlon II for entry level gaming. It would do ok with more demanding games but the games are starting to catch up with current tech finally. Phenom II or I5/I7 would be for the more serious gamers. Reply

Hey, AMD could not make any processor approriately like Intel. Even AMD will not make any processor soon because AMD will bankrupt. AMD is whining too much and must be punished. Intel products are better than any AMD products. Reply

The next few months will be very interesting for AMD, soon they will have the i3 to compete with in this market so pricing will become very important and Nvidia (possibly) about to put some heat on them in the graphics department...hang in there little fella! Reply

The huge problem with this is STREET prices of CURRENT Intel cpu's.
Less than 7 days ago, in a STORE mind you, i just purchased a q9550 CPU. for $169.. Quad core 2.83 ghz, 12mb cache, looks/acts/IS a much better price /performance, AT $169.. That is hard to beat Reply

It had to be a return, open box, or a going out of business sale because even newegg has it listed for $269 and they pretty much always whoop store's prices. No way he got it by normal means at that price.
For $179.99 you can get an AMD Phenom IIx4 955 Black Edition which is about on par performance wise as a q9550. That's $90 you're saving for the same performance. Reply

Yeah, I want it soon. Intel will crush them in the low end segment too. I want Intel own all PC Market if Intel have been successfully made AMD's cash empty. AMD is whine too much, so Intel must punish AMD until dead. Reply

Whatever, please you must notice that everyone in Intel Investorhub website and AiMeD Corporation blogs have been talk like me that AMD will be doomed with its own not so competence in developing its products. Reply

Intel products are cheaper. Price/performance ration is more favourable to Intel products. Only AMDiot will like AMD products. And Intel is not monopoly, this is the nature capitalism folks, if you don't have any competitive product, it is a grant to a company with the best product to crush you. Reply

I like that AMD is bringing out a x3 based off of the Athlon II's. This makes sense, so they can sell more chips/wafer. I think for the $12 difference I'd rather have the x4 620, but that is just me. I do like that they have come out with more power friendly CPU's too, especially for those thinking of a quieter HTPC!! I know that the Intel CPU's generally OC better, but most people don't OC at all so having a cheaper/better based clocked CPU is a win/win for consumers. Maybe we'll see a price drop during the Christmas rush, maybe not. Reply

I think most folk can’t see the potential paradigm shift of the direction AMD is moving, all the while remaining consistent to their eccobeliefs- "less power more production". Their Opteron multicore processor stresses low power with multiple cores- I think it’s clear looking at the Opteron and their other recent chips that AMD is not competing with Intel for the top speed honors or the fastest Giga chip. We have also seen perhaps closer relationships between AMD Apple, AMD Microsoft directly connected by AMDs graphic card products 4000 series, OpenCL, directX11, direct Compute... The giga-chip wars are over, AMD has been preparing for the end-of-day future is now, for a while now. It’s no longer about pumping the power of the CPU, because all the processing power one ever needs goes unused; we've all had this river of untapped processing power in our computers for some time now. The power is in the GPU; coupled with current low watt multicore processors, while using OpenCl, DirectX11, direct-compute, CPU-GPU becomes both the redeemer and the grim reaper at the same time. The second stage is the bonding between GPU & CPU- Llano

On another note- I personally don’t believe Larrabee will be developed in time, if at all work as promised. I belive they were late in seeing
Reply

It's funny, AMD will never get any profit and still loss after 3 years consecutively. I belive you can not buy any AMD product when Intel roll out the Larrabee. I believe Intel will win in this market too and will crush NVIDIA like AMD before. Intel will own all and everyone will be happy both customers and the consumer. Reply

Yeah well they had to absorb 5 million to buy ATI.
So everyone would be happy if Intel owned everything huh? Would anyone here be happy paying $1000+ for a cpu? I think not. You are clueless. AMD will return to profitability next year and will completely own the GPU market by then. Without AMD, no Intel fanboy would be happy period. Reply

No offense, but you don't know what you are talking about! AMD currently owns 31.5% of the CPU market to Intel's 68.5%. That's better than a 5% increase in the last year alone! Rumors have it that nVidia is canceling some of it's higher end video cards because they can't compete with Ati in the high end market, so Ati's market will grow even more, which means even more profits for AMD!
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/06/nvidia-kill...">http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/06/...x260-aba...The article also claims that nVidia may even abandon the high end cards altogether!

Intel is in the awkward position of having the best computer, but almost no one can afford it, so the original i7 is relegated to the server market. They also have to maintain production of faster CPUs than AMD makes! AMD has two low priced Quad cores, the Athlon IIx4 620 and 630. $99 and $122 respectively. The 620 will overclock about 800MHz, while the 630, over 1GHz, both on air! From a price/performance point of view, AMD wins hands down! AMD has invested heavily in the low to mid price market, and have a wide variety of CPUs to cover any need. I would say they have planned well, and should be in a very good sales position during the continuing recession!

I would also like to point out that AMD hasn't made a major mistake in well over a year. Products have come out when they were supposed to, and there haven't been any real glitches in any of the new CPUs. They've also continued to refine these new CPUs to the point that the Phenom IIx4 Deneb 940 overclocks better and is a better all around CPU today, than it was when it was first introduced!

And for the best business deal of the new century, hands down! AMD sold their entire multi-billion dollar debt by selling their Chip Fabs, while still maintaining operation and control of them! I don't think these guys are about to fold their tent quite yet! I believe they are a lot smarter than you think!

Larrabee is a big unknown. I suspect it won't be as good as anybody hopes and initially drivers will suck. My guess is larrabee version 2 will be much better but probably still suck compared to equivalent amd/nvidia, and maybe version 3 (in like 5 years) will be competitive. And that's if intel doesn't just give up again like they have every other time they say they will make good graphics. The barrier to entry into the graphics market is huge now, it's not simple to design a dx11 gpu core that works (just ask nvidia) let alone one that is fast. And then drivers are a constant work in progress. I don't believe a new player can come along and get it all right their first try.
Reply

That's why Intel actually does not imply they are making a GPU but rather a processor with GPU capabilities. Interestingly enough NVIDIA also backs off the notion GPU. I guess the only pure next generation GPUs will be ATI. What is going to come after that - nobody like us knows yet. Reply

Oh you are so terribly mistaken! Without any competition Intel would raise its prices so high that only the rich could afford a PC. If it were not for AMD (or any other competitor) we would still be using first generation pentiums costing $500 ea. To make an assinine statement that "...everyone will be happy both customers and the consumer." is pure unmitigated BS.

Currently, Intel does not need any competitor. Intel will crush them as soon as possible with prices cutting. This is their own fault, why they are not so competitive in performance and can not wins the benchmark Reply

1. Intel isn't trying to kill AMD, they are trying to shackle AMD into the budget range and keep them there, AMD sole purpose is to remain as a second supplier and to give the appearance of competition, so for Intel AMD serves a purpose.

2. Intel didn't care about having a memory controller on their processors as they were already outperforming AMD's offerings without it. It isn't the be all and end all to performance and also comes with disadvantages as well. Core 2 outperformed Athlon 64's of the time, and were even to equivalently clocked 45nm Phenoms, 65nm AMD had it's own share of issues. Reply

What Intel never trying to kill AMD. This is only AMDiot assumption. Ask Anand, he will never agree with you AMDiot. This is the nature of capitalism. Money and product competitiveness are the facts that you can not denied. Reply

Shitty pun, knock it off. Intel has tried to crush AMD since 1986. Where have you been? Oh, right, you probably weren't even born when the 8080 and 8086 processors came out for the IBM PC or even when the AM286 came out.
Money, product, and competitiveness are not facts they are words you just threw out to sound like you know something. You have no clue about business, go back to your 6th grade classes. Reply

There is so much wrong with your post it's not funny, but I'll point some out.

1) We have no idea how Larrabee will perform.

2) nVidia ATI/AMD are not going anywhere soon.

3) Intel got beaten by ATI and nVidia in the Graphics card market before when Intel released the Intel i740i AGP graphics card.

4) With Intels history of poor driver support for there Graphics solutions, I don't have much faith in Larrabee being different, I hope I'm wrong though, the added competition would be awesome.

5) If Intel owns the Chipset/CPU/Graphics markets 100% that would be -bad- no competition to keep prices low, remember when a decent computer would cost over 3 thousand bucks?

6) Both ATI and nVidia have had YEARS of experience in the Graphics industry, they will not let a new player into that market without a fight.

7) I would -not- be happy if we lost any extra company's especially AMD and nVidia, it would be all-round bad for everyone, I wouldn't have been able to build a stupidly cheap Quad-Core system (Athlon 2 x4 620) if it weren't for AMD. Reply

No, it will never. You can get a decent performance Intel rig with less than 500 dollar. Intel products will become cheaper and cheaper. Consumer will be more happy with cheap Intel products and they can choose it only from the most trusted brand for processor, Intel. Reply

You can buy A intel rig for $500, yes. But, it will not be as powerful as the AMD $500 build. Taking into account you spend just as much money on the intel processor as you do the AMD processor. Or you'll likely spend more on the amd processor as there are many ways to cut corners and still have 95% of the performance of the other parts and get a better processor. Reply

Intel will not jacks up the prices at random. Intel is a good company with many OEM's respect to Intel. Intel did not do anything wrong, with its dominant power. This is AMD's own fault that it did not has manufacturing capacities for its processors production. This is the fate of Intel that Intel will own all. Reply

Get real! Are you an Intel Sales rep? Without AMD most of us can ill afford a computer. The slowest one would cost over $1000. Business is business. There is no such thing as a good or moral company. They answer to their share holders, not to you or me. If you are only joking. It is not funny at all. Reply

Yeah intel is a great company, other than all of the bribing, overpricing, trying to monopolize. Other than that they are a good company and make good processors/ssd's/everything else. IGP's blow so far though. Reply

[sarcasm] Thats right, if only there was no COMPETITION prices could be LOW... it is a well known FACT that competition serves only to raise prices! [/sarcasm]
That is the dumbest thing I have heard in a very long time. Reply

"Whatever AMD product throws to market, rubbish is a rubbish. Intel products prices will make AMD's prices room tighter, and AMD is going to sink into oblivion. I love it because Intel prices will be cheaper to consumer."

I may have misinterpreted this, but his post seems to be indicating that if AMD were no longer in the game, Intel would have no competition and would LOWER prices in accordance. Something which, as we all know, not only wouldn't happen but is totally contrary to common business practices. If there's only one supplier, you're not going to go find cheaper options from somebody else; you'll be tied to that one supplier and they will feel less need to improve their designs.

As odd as it may seem, that's what I believe he was referring to. Reply